A Christian response to the book “A manual for creating atheists by peter boghossian”

Started: 5-27-2019
Finished: 8 6 2019

As a general rule of thumb I ignore anti-theists and atheists online because they don’t really have anything of value to say or to add to any worthwhile conversations I have had with friends and co workers about my religious Faith or theirs. Typically they will end up saying offensive and meaningless things or subjects and basically prove themselves to be little more than ignorant and left leaning jackasses that are easily shrugged off.

During the early days of youtube the atheist / anti theist superstars of that platform showed beyond a shadow of doubt that their speeches and supposed study wasn’t about proof but their own biases and hatred of right leaning people, subjects and etc.

But I digress.

About 3 months ago I found a copy of his book being sold cheaply at a second hand store and so out of my curiosity I bought it and sat myself own to read it. Despite his education it was obvious to me that his arguments weren’t based off of sound ideas but his own bias and his previous disdain for right leaning politics and ideas that are contrary to he supposedly believed at the time he was hawking his wares in the book form and his various interviews.

The following is my attempt at responding to his shoddy authorship and a demonstration of how he isn’t trust worthy as a author and his philosophy isn’t scientifically sound.

His definition of Faith can be defined as:

P. 23 ‘belief without evidence’ and ‘pretending to know things you don’t know’

When in reality it is:

“Definition of faith:”
1 a
“: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty “
“lost faith in the company’s president”
(1) : fidelity to one’s promises
(2): sincerity of intentions acted in good faith

“2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God “
“(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion “
“b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof “
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return”
“(2): complete trust “
“3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction
especially : a system of religious beliefs”



My obvious problems with his definition is that Christianity is beyond ‘mere belief’ but based off of evidence and clear thinking about subjects that go beyond our modern times and philosophy. Meanwhile his ideas aren’t based on evidence but mere philosophy that is probably borrowed from other writers.

The following subjects are problems I have listed that demonstrate the flaws in his philosophy and writing style.

Problem #1 Definitions.

In his book he defines several words in order to construct his basic philosophy that Faith can be attacked solely without evidence. His use of terms such as:



And so forth. When these words are properly defined along with several others… those definitions are contrary to his definitions. And in doing so his basis for attempting to seduce people out of their faith backfires because his ideas are not defined correctly.

Why is this a problem?

As a typical leftist they like to create new definitions from many old words. Let’s use a few from their lgbt ideas.

Gay – Male homosexual.
Gay – Happy (Original definition)

Pan sexual – A person who loves male, female or trans.
Pan sexual – A follower of the god pan who was a god of lust. He was described as a half man and half goat. This was a god who went after men, women and animals.

Trans is defined as: across; beyond.

Instead the left use something like:

Trans-man – A biological female who believes that they can become a man
Trans-woman – A biological male who believes they can become a woman

Here is why this is problematic. By redefining various words and attributing them for other purposes they don’t actually solve larger issues but create confusion to the reader. Our American society has reached it maximum saturation with lgbt re-definitions and the demands of the elitists who are in control of the media. Added to this is the bad attitudes or activities’ of those in the lgbt ‘lifestyle’ trying to push their philosophy and political correctness on those who don’t care for it they easily create enemies in the personal and political sphere and this is where we have easily found youtube videos of trans – whatever getting told to leave a business or the push back on lgbt businesses who have kicked out Christians or others who lean right.

Problem 2 the core of his anti-theist philosophy.

P. 105 Socrates philosophy.

‘1 wonder / question’

‘2 hypothesis’

‘3 Elenchus (Q&A)’

‘4 Accepting revising the hypothesis’

‘5 Acting accordingly’

The ideas of his book is to use the ‘Socratic method’ to converse with various people to put doubt about religious faith in peoples minds.

While doing so he ignores the multitudes of immoral activities that socrates was involved in which of course included being a sodomite and being anti-democratic. And this assumes that Socrates did exist at all.

While I can’t speak about other religions such as sda, islam, lds etc as a believer in those ideas. I can speak as a Christian. My Faith is not made up of a fairy tails or fraud. I can say that without question my Faith is from personal experience, Historical study & research, And the research of the many other religions on who was their teachers, what they teach and how they are based on either frauds or lies.

His ‘faith’ in anti-theism and ‘humanism’ is based not on facts or evidence but lies and philosophy.

Problems with his book and philosophy. My attack points:

1 His definitions are wrong.

2 His ‘faith’ in atheist or anti-theism isn’t backed by proof or evidence but philosophy so his entire book / doctrine can actually be used against his own students because the lack of evidence that anti-theism is scientific or has proof to back up his claims.

3 He makes regular claims that he isn’t a ‘atheist’ and yet he has multiple notes with atheist / anti theist websites, authors in his book etc.

4 Wants religious faith terminated and churches / organizations to be de-funded, undermined and has claimed to want to destroy all of the religious faith that America has championed over 200 years.

This poses a legal problem because he can’t actually destroy all religious thought, faith, free speech etc. Because he would then be a legal target and worse.

5 He is a published hoax writer along with two other writers who willingly or unwillingly has helped the Political Right with destroying or damaging the political left in college or academia.

His printed research papers that were found out to be sophistry.

This statement of mine is backed up with just a quick name search in youtube.

6 Refuses to use facts, evidence to challenge Christians or any other religion. He simply tried to use Socrates philosophy against those with a religious faith. P. 71-73

7 Admits the following in his book are atheistic tenants:

P. 38 atheisms tenants are:
‘Social justice’
‘Women’s rights’
‘Protesting against racism’
‘Fighting homophobia / trans-phobia’

8 P. 132 Has no answers when a person suffers or is preparing to die…

9 P. 86 Admits not to engage in politics because he knows his pet subjects from p. 38 can be attacked due to the damage inflicted on those ‘heretic’ who donot believe in their philosophy. Also causes damage to his philosophy by not using facts or evidence.

10 According to this interview he supposedly had a specific design to:

“PB: They’re right. I’m undermining their beliefs by taking a look at how they claim to know what they know. So when somebody tells me that Jesus walked on water or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, I want to know how they know that. And I think that’s an incredibly reasonable question. Specifically since they’ve gone out of their way to influence public policy about issues that really matter, and those issues have been incredibly hurtful to people. So if somebody says, “You’re attacking my beliefs,” that’s somewhat true, but I’m really attacking the way they form beliefs. I really want to know how they know that, and I expect an answer. And if you can’t provide an answer, then back to the kids’ table you go. You should have no voice in public policy; maybe you should be a fiction writer.”

“VG: Faith is often held to be a virtue, whether in politics or everyday life. How do you feel about that?”

“PB: Faith is not a virtue; faith is an epistemology. Once we understand how faith is an epistemology, everything changes. Because then you’re talking about knowledge, then you’re talking about how people know something. People who make faith claims are making knowledge claims; they’re trusting, for example, in Jesus. “I trust that after I die, I’m going to heaven and be with all of my relatives and Jesus.” Once somebody makes that claim, that’s a knowledge claim. So when you understand that, you can target their epistemology and help them see that that’s just a delusion. Or not, maybe you don’t help them see that’s a delusion, and maybe they know something you don’t know. And if they know something you don’t know, well then, I want to know what it is, because I want to know it too. So if somebody has an epistemology that’s more predictive, more parsimonious, what have you, then I want to know what it is. But having a [good] way to come to knowledge doesn’t make you a good person; having a bad way to come to knowledge just makes you wrong.”

“VG: Do you believe faith has a place in public policy?”

“PB: No. Well, does believing something on the basis of no evidence have any basis in public policy? No. You should formulate public policy on the best available evidence. And we should teach people to make better, more discerning judgments as a result of what evidence they have. There has to be some price to be paid, politically, for people who formulate their beliefs on the basis of no evidence or insufficient evidence.”

“VG: Bringing it back to your book, what is your goal in writing this book?”

“PB: My goal is literally to create a legion of people who go out wherever the faithful are found [and] in every interaction to help them come to reason and shed superstition, irrationality and faith. That’s my goal. Literally to create a legion of people that will stop the tide of irrationality.”



Why this matters:

We have seen how anti-theists have created their own political policies and for what gains?

Destroying morality and ethics
Supporting toxic feminism
Supporting abortion
Supporting questionable laws and philosophy relating to lgbt
Anti Constitution

Anti Freedom in its many forms
Pro illegals who may or may not be criminals
Pro communism / socialism

And basically pro anti-nomianism / ist

How can his philosophy stand when he admits that his attacks are not based on proofs or evidence but a meaningless series of questions. Questions that can be turned on his students such as.

“How do you know there is no God?”
“How do you know that Jesus didn’t live?”
“How do you know that anti-theism is a moral system?”

In other words his entire philosophy can be turned around on himself or his students when he doesn’t know those answers.

How can a author like himself be trusted in anything relating to public policy, morality and so forth when he has his name associated with left leaning scholastic papers that were sent off to left leaning colleges demonstrating their fatal philosophy flaws and the idiocy in wanting to believe that he and his fellows were right.

Youtube evidence:

The irony is that while claiming to be left leaning and supporting the causes such as:

“P. 38” atheisms tenants are:
“Social justice”
“Women’s rights”
“Protesting against racism”
“Fighting homophobia / trans-phobia”

He ended up actually supporting the political lefts enemies such as Conservatives, Republicans by demonstrating the philosophical flaws within the systems he supports in colleges.

In the end what did I take away from his book and my online research about him.

1 Modern American anti-nomian political policies are traced back to his anti-theism.

2 Left leaning public education and political policies are idiotic due to the lack of evidence that they are helpful to EVERYONE and not just a elitist few.

3 That subjects related to being atheistic or anti-nomian is not for the common good but is meant to damage and destroy families and everything that is useful and good for society.

4 He has a absurd amount of hate for those of us who Christian or Jewish or the many other religious Faiths who donot adhere to the flawed philosophy that doesn’t bring hope to those who are hurting, suffering or dying.

5 As usual those who are atheistic / anti-theist or anti-nomian cannot solve the problems that the USA is plagued with such as drug addiction, homelessness, crime, they are meaningless gas bags who use out Nations problems to gather money and power from others suffering.

While he can spew his ideologies he and others like him cannot solve the physical and spiritual problems of the USA he only adds to them.

%d bloggers like this: